'Back on Track species prioritisation framework' criteria
Brown ringlet © Tim Holmes
'Back on Track species prioritisation framework' criteria are an adaptation of the criteria in Optimizing allocation of management resources for wildlife (Marsh et al., 2007).
To score species, three sets of criteria (with seven sub criteria) were developed to account for scientific, management and social aspects of species conservation in Queensland.
The three sets of criteria; probability of extinction , consequences of extinction and potential for successful recovery, were adapted to enable a state wide approach to species assessments with a greater level of practicality and simplicity.
For each species a score is given, from 1 to 4, on its probability of extinction, consequences of extinction, and its capacity for recovery.
1. Probability of extinction
This criterion assesses the risk of extinction for a species. Experts are asked to select which IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources also known as The World Conservation Union) threatened species category best reflects the current status of the species. For example, a species assessed as 'Endangered' is given a score of 4 and a species considered 'Least concern' a score of 1. The scoring of this criterion provides an up-to-date assessment of the status of a species, which may differ from its status under the Queensland Nature Conservation Act 1992 (NCA).
2. Consequences of extinction
This criterion consists of three sub criteria that assess the ecological, global and social consequences of a species becoming extinct in Queensland.
Lakefield National Park
© EPA
2.a. Ecological redundancy: Experts are asked to assess, to the best of their knowledge, what role a species plays in its ecosystem. For example, a species assessed as a keystone species (top predator) is given a score of 4 and a species which shares a similar role in the ecosystem as other species is given a score of 1.
2.b. Endemicity and abundance patterns: This criterion assesses what proportion of the global population of the species occurs in Queensland. Species with the majority of their range in Queensland receive a score of 4 and those species with less than 15% of their global population in Queensland receive a score of 1.
2.c. Social values: This criterion assesses the value of the species to humans. This includes non-use values (the value of the species existing in the wild) and use values (the value of the species for consumptive or non-consumptive use). A species of high social value to mainstream community is given a score of 4 and a species which is generally unknown to the wider community a score of 1.
3. Potential for successful recovery
This criteria assesses our understanding of why the species may decline (the threats), whether it is possible to manage these threats, and the amount of time and effort required to recover the species.
Snake vine
© Lara Connell EPA
3.a. Knowledge of threatening processes: This criterion assesses the level of knowledge of the threats affecting a species. A species whose threatening processes are regarded as well understood will receive a score of 4, where as a species that is not known to be in decline a score of 1. The success of species conservation projects depends on an understanding of the threatening processes.
3.b. Capacity to affect recovery by controlling threatening processes: Some species have threats that can be more easily controlled than others, these species are given a score a 4. Other threatening processes, such as global warming, are impossible to control via unilateral management intervention based in Queensland and ultimately score a 1. There is a need to ensure that the actions undertaken will have a realistic and achievable benefit to species recovery and conservation.
3.c. Need for ongoing management (as distinct from monitoring): The amount of resources required to recover the species. When resources are scarce, it may be more appropriate to assign management priority to species for which the threatening processes can be countered by a single action rather than expensive long-term management.
The technical expert scores are multiplied by the Manger's Weightings to determine the total score for each species.
Species are then ranked as 'Critical', 'High', 'Medium' or 'Low' priority, or as 'data deficient'. 'Data deficient' species are species too poorly known to be assessed using the 'Back on Track' criteria. However it is important that 'data deficient' species are identified and reviewed to determine which species are priorities for research. Species ranked as 'Critical' or 'High' priority for each NRM region are used as the starting point for an NRM regional workshop.
The ranking of priority species is the first step towards the implementation of multi-species actions (that will be developed through the identification of common threats and actions in regional workshops), which will form a more integrated approach to species recovery and conservation management.
Lessons learnt
Fleay's barred frog
© H.B. Hines EPA
The implementation of the 'Back on Track species prioritisation framework' on a state wide scale has heralded significant learning in several areas including:
- Applying the criteria
- Policy development
- Change management
The 'Back on Track species prioritisation framework' team are willing to share what they have learnt from the process with others who are considering implementing this or similar types of projects.
Please contact:
Threatened Species Strategy Unit
Sustainable Communities
Queensland Environmental Protection Agency
PO Box 15155
City East QLD 4002
Phone: (07) 3225 1295
Fax: (07) 3227 6386
Email: sara.williams@epa.qld.gov.au
Return to 'Back on Track species prioritisation framework' main page
Last updated: 01 September 2008